A model for effective Catholic social justice

  • Thread starter Thread starter jwinch2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jwinch2

Guest
Over the past months, we have seen several discussions, here and elsewhere, about various Catholic groups that have, unwittingly or otherwise, given money to groups who act in ways that are against Church teaching. In addition, in the now completed election, we have had several discussions about balancing various aspects of Catholic Social Doctrine against each other (e.g. abortion vs. programs for the poor, solidarity vs. subsidiarity, etc.).

This is something that I have thought about quite a bit in recent months, and to be honest, well before that as I was coming into the Church. My conclusion is simple and, to be fair, not even my own. I look to the words of a great proponent of helping the poor and also being faithful to the Church, Dorothy Day (who’s cause for sainthood is being put forward as we speak), when she said the following:
Dorothy Day:
Don’t worry about being effective. Just concentrate on being faithful to the truth.
Click to expand...
If all of us, throughout the universal Church, put these words into practice, as simple as they are, I believe that we will see a massive increase in the results we obtain through our works of mercy and charity. In my opinion, all we need to do is focus on being faithful to the teachings of the Church, and God will take care of making sure our works are effective. When we stray from the teachings of the Church, even in the name of doing the right thing for others, our results will not be good.

I know that this is nothing new and that I am hardly putting anything out there that has not been discussed before. However, I really believe this and I wish groups within the Church and acting in cooperation with the Church, would keep this quote from Dorothy Day in the forefront of their minds as they are making decisions about how to live their vocation and help others. If that happens, I believe we will see a significant improvement in the results our programs achieve.

Peace,
 
Jason,

Nice comment. I appreciate you desire to bring hope and comfort to the “least of these.”

I hope you will keep this as a part of your life all of your life on this earth in this world. As you pointed out, Dorothy Day didn’t give up just because the world didn’t seem to change much because of her efforts.

You wrote: “I believe that we will see a massive increase in the results we obtain through our works of mercy and charity.”

Will you forgive me if I make slightly critical remark about that phraseology? You spoke of “mercy and charity.” In that sentence, you didn’t speak of “justice.”

In the U.S., there is a huge movement of proponents of a pure Laissez Faire economic system. They want pure, unregulated, or virtually unregulated, Capitalism. To them, any invention in the economy for the well being of the working poor or the middle class is a heresy and is unconstitutional. Let’s call these people the Laissez Faire-ists.

Laissez Faire-ists LOVE to talk about “charity” for the working poor, but they HATE any talk of “justice.” Why? Because justice is something that governments impose on society. Individuals can’t create justice in society. That’s why there are no private police detectives, private courts, and private prisons in the U.S.

Catholic Social Doctrine calls on the government to establish a Just Family Wage, precisely so that the working poor with small kids don’t have to go and beg from charitable organizations just to survive. But Laissez Faire Social Doctrine condemns any and all forms of a minimum wage, in all and any amounts, in any place or situation.

In my opinion, the Laissez Faire-ists believe that it is normal and natural for 10 to 20 percent (or more) of a population to forever consist of working poor families who are always living in destitution, barely surviving, and always needed to beg from charities (which are generally controlled by the major donors to those organizations). By contrast, the popes and Catholic bishops have always called for government intervention to bring the working poor families out of perpetual destitution and indignity. Just go and read the recent “Compendium of of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church.”

The late Archbishop Oscar Romero said, in this vein, “It is sin to give in charity that which is due in justice.”

We live in times full of propaganda and confusion. The Laissez Faire-ists condemn as “Socialism” any government intervention in the economy on the behalf of working poor families or struggling middle class families. But the Catholic Church does not share that view.

But don’t believe me, or any other person who has this or that opinion. Read and study the “Compendium of of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church,” and then read and study all the documents it cites.

Also read, study, and reflect on the life of St. Francis of Assisi, who is sort of keystone to the matter of poverty and helping and uniting with the working poor.

Forgive my errors! I am not God, you know. But neither is anyone else in this forum. God is God. The Truth is the Truth. Seek and cleave to God and the Truth and the People of God!

Merry Christmas, and let’s all skip St. Benjamin Franklin’s annual year end Shoppingfest!

Yours,

Barto
 
Well, thanks for turning this into a political discussion and thus destroying any chance that the actual topic of this thread can be discussed in rational and productive format.
 
Jason,

What absolutely has to happen first is that someone has to go back and look at the exegesis of what it is to be poor in the Bible, aka the Anawim tradition and what it meant to the writers of the Gospel when they used it. They weren’t just throwing maxims around for the fun of it.

And then it has to be followed with the same kind of rigor and logic through the history of the Church til we arrive at today.

This is the only REAL way to understand what the phrase “the poor” means in the Christian tradition. The rest IS ONLY politics. 🤷
 
I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit as well Jason and I think that one of the better investments I can make towards achieving social justice is in the formation of holy priests.
This can exponentially increase our effort as more people are catechized and put their faith into action. It’s kind of a Catholic spin on Oxfam’s give a person a fishing pole and teach him or her to fish.
We took up a collection for seminarians at my FSSP parish recently. May it bear much fruit.
May we all, led by our priests, learn to be better fisherpeople. Amen.
Mark 1:17Online …Douay-Rheims. And Jesus said to them: Come after me; and I will make you to become fishers of men.
 
jwinch2 said:
Well, thanks for turning this into a political discussion and thus destroying any chance that the actual topic of this thread can be discussed in rational and productive format.
Click to expand...
Thanks to the person who I directed this comment towards for removing their post.

Now, to the discussion at hand.
 
iloveangels said:
Jason,

What absolutely has to happen first is that someone has to go back and look at the exegesis of what it is to be poor in the Bible, aka the Anawim tradition and what it meant to the writers of the Gospel when they used it. They weren’t just throwing maxims around for the fun of it.

And then it has to be followed with the same kind of rigor and logic through the history of the Church til we arrive at today.

This is the only REAL way to understand what the phrase “the poor” means in the Christian tradition. The rest IS ONLY politics. 🤷
Click to expand...
My original statement is not directed solely at our work with the poor, though that is obviously a major part of the topic. To your point, there are a number of ways we can look at poverty within the Tradition of the Church, all of them important. Your suggestion that we look at the manner in which the words were intended by the sacred authors is a valid approach in my view.

Regardless of how we define the word “poor” or what aspect of Catholic Social Doctrine an individual apostolate may be focused on (not all of social justice implies working with the poor), the key, to me, is to focus on being faithful to the teaching of the Church rather than focusing on the result of the work being done. Does that mean we ignore ways to be more efficient or to increase the impact of our work? Of course not. However, what it does suggest to me, is that we need to keep the main thing as the main thing and let God be the focus. If we do that, I believe He will take care of ensuring the effectiveness of our efforts, be they with the poor or otherwise.

I tie this back into the things we have seen with CCHD, CRS, etc. (see anyone of the several threads on these groups for examples) and money given by Catholics to help others being sent to places and groups which are not always in line with Church teaching. I understand that many of these instances took place with what were probably good intentions in trying to help those who need it. However, in doing so, I believe we have actually decreased our effectiveness rather than increased it. As I suggested above with our work as individuals, if those groups will keep being faithful to the teachings of the Church at the top of their priority list, I strongly believe that the fruits of their labor will be far greater than would be otherwise.
 
jwinch2 said:
My original statement is not directed solely at our work with the poor, though that is obviously a major part of the topic. To your point, there are a number of ways we can look at poverty within the Tradition of the Church, all of them important. Your suggestion that we look at the manner in which the words were intended by the sacred authors is a valid approach in my view.

Regardless of how we define the word “poor” or what aspect of Catholic Social Doctrine an individual apostolate may be focused on (not all of social justice implies working with the poor), the key, to me, is to focus on being faithful to the teaching of the Church rather than focusing on the result of the work being done. Does that mean we ignore ways to be more efficient or to increase the impact of our work? Of course not. However, what it does suggest to me, is that we need to keep the main thing as the main thing and let God be the focus. If we do that, I believe He will take care of ensuring the effectiveness of our efforts, be they with the poor or otherwise.

I tie this back into the things we have seen with CCHD, CRS, etc. (see anyone of the several threads on these groups for examples) and money given by Catholics to help others being sent to places and groups which are not always in line with Church teaching. I understand that many of these instances took place with what were probably good intentions in trying to help those who need it. However, in doing so, I believe we have actually decreased our effectiveness rather than increased it. As I suggested above with our work as individuals, if those groups will keep being faithful to the teachings of the Church at the top of their priority list, I strongly believe that the fruits of their labor will be far greater than would be otherwise.
Click to expand...
Yes, you’re talking about making sure we know WHY we do it, as well as THAT we do it. This is an important distinction that, many times, hasn’t been properly made.

Rather interestingly, some of the reason it hasn’t been made, and still isn’t being made, is an artifact of history, I think. [And there is a lot of concrete evidence of that.]

The remaining incentive for doing what we do, the way we do it, is perhaps politics or expediency.
 
There are a lot of questions to answer here:
  1. Who are the poor? What does “poor” mean to all the originators of the concern? Christ. The inspired evangelists. The popes. The councils. The saints & doctors. Etc.
  2. What is the relationship of the poor in Catholicism to the poor outside Catholicism?
  3. What does this “poor-ness” cause us to be called to do in a Gospel sense? Exactly? And why?
And finally, ONLY when we decide who the poor are, why we are called to minister to them, and what we are called to do for them, then we ask HOW should we do it? There is no rule or principle in scripture or anywhere else in the faith that says that we have to go through some federal government to minister to the poor.
 
iloveangels said:
Yes, you’re talking about making sure we know WHY we do it, as well as THAT we do it. This is an important distinction that, many times, hasn’t been properly made.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is part of what I am referring to, but I am also suggesting that being faithful to the teachings of the Church should be an integral part of how we do it.

There are three aspects of this that you alluded to:
  1. Why we do it - What is the motivation for wanting to do something in the first place?
  2. Actually doing it - Does the motivation turn into action in the form of work, giving, etc.?
  3. How it is done - What is the process by which this action takes place, what decisions are made, and how are they implemented?
All three of the above aspects much be in line with the teachings of the Church, not just the first two. If that happens, I believe our efforts will be blessed by God and thus they will bear good fruit. There seem to be too many examples in recent times where why we do it and actually making it happen are coming from good places, while how it is done is not always in line with the teachings of the Church.
 
jwinch2 said:
Yes, that is part of what I am referring to, but I am also suggesting that being faithful to the teachings of the Church should be an integral part of how we do it. There seem to be too many examples in recent times where the how we do it has not been in line with Church teaching even if the why we do it and the that we do it has been.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure you can even get to how before you get to why. In fact, I’m pretty sure you can’t.
 
jwinch2 said:
I don’t believe I suggested that you can.
Click to expand...
You’re right, Jason. You didn’t. Good call.

Perhaps I want to just point out that the temptation to jump to a prescription is very strong and must be guarded against.
 
jwinch2 said:
Yes, that is part of what I am referring to, but I am also suggesting that being faithful to the teachings of the Church should be an integral part of how we do it.

There are three aspects of this that you alluded to:
  1. Why we do it - What is the motivation for wanting to do something in the first place?
  2. Actually doing it - Does the motivation turn into action in the form of work, giving, etc.?
  3. How it is done - What is the process by which this action takes place, what decisions are made, and how are they implemented?
All three of the above aspects much be in line with the teachings of the Church, not just the first two. If that happens, I believe our efforts will be blessed by God and thus they will bear good fruit. There seem to be too many examples in recent times where why we do it and actually making it happen are coming from good places, while how it is done is not always in line with the teachings of the Church.
Click to expand...
I’m actually not at all sure that the WHY is well-understood. I think people substitute secular or cultural WHYs that they’re getting someplace else for the real WHYs that there are, according to all the foundational Catholic doctrines and theology we have as a Church. I’ve listened to a lot of it and I’m sure of this, in fact.
 
iloveangels said:
You’re right, Jason. You didn’t. Good call.

Perhaps I want to just point out that the temptation to jump to a prescription is very strong and must be guarded against.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Knowing the why part of this is absolutely essential. Again, Church teaching must form all three of the aspects mentioned above. If at any level that disappears, I believe the work will be far less successful then it otherwise would have been.

For a simple but valid description of the why that is perfectly in line with the Church I look to Blessed Mother Teresa’s answer when asked why she did what she did: “you did it to me”. If we, or our Catholic organizations, focus on seeing Christ in others, the question of proper motivation will largely take care of itself in my view.
 
jwinch2 said:
Agreed. Knowing the why part of this is absolutely essential. Again, Church teaching must form all three of the aspects mentioned above. If at any level that disappears, I believe the work will be far less successful then it otherwise would have been.

For a simple but valid description of the why that is perfectly in line with the Church I look to Blessed Mother Teresa’s answer when asked why she did what she did: “you did it to me”. If we, or our Catholic organizations, focus on seeing Christ in others, the question of proper motivation will largely take care of itself in my view.
Click to expand...
That’s kind of apochryphal. Meaning, it’s not doctrinal, not really. It’s an example, not a reason.
 
I don’t know, Jason, that there isn’t a doctrinal piece that supports that sentiment of Mother Teresa. In fact, I think there might be. But it needs to be explained and brought out as the real reason, the WHY, if there is. What Mother Teresa has there is an experience of her own, an intuition, an example. That’s not a doctrine or teaching of the Church as much as people personally like to hear it repeated.

And it still doesn’t answer the WHO. Who are the poor and why are they poor? Is it the Anawim, or the spiritually lost, or the unhappy, or is it the financially less fortunate or who is it? We don’t know that until we establish it.

In our culture, we tend to jump immediately to the idea of money as a driver for things. It’s very, very important to us. That could actually lead us to some odd consequences, and I don’t know if it has or not. That’s part of understanding this.
 
jwinch2 said:
I disagree. It is absolutely a reason.
Click to expand...
Based on what?

I mean by that, are you going to give me an exegesis by Paul from one of the Epistles, or is there a writing of a Father of the Church or one of the Synoptics, or the product of a development of doctrine in the Church whose steps you can put forth in logical fashion… what do you have to support the idea that this is a legitimate Catholic reason?
 
I’m not saying that it can’t be an example of a Catholic reason. I am saying that it can’t be a stand-alone reason like that (aka, one without some foundational support as I asked for above). Otherwise, anything could be a stand-alone reason.

As a matter of fact, Mother Teresa got into a lot of hot water with some of her benefactors because she wasn’t as interested in money as they thought she’d ought to be. She wasn’t in on the model that most Westerners are in on. That doesn’t, by itself, make her right or wrong, but it does make her somewhat incommensurate when we talk about this giving to the poor thing from a contemporary Western point of view. And without knowing the model in detail and depth, it’s certainly not enough to pronounce that we’d ought to just follow the appearances of it somehow and proclaim that good enough. That’s just being “ad hoc prescriptive.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top